IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

DARRELL WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:10-CV-1117

JUDGE MARBLEY

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING

OHIO FAIR PLAN,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

On May 24, 2011, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended

that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 29, be denied

and that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 31, be

granted. Order and Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 37. This

matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s various objections to that

recommendation. Doc. Nos. 39, 40, 41, 43 and 44. Plaintiff’s

motions for leave to supplement his opposition and objections, Doc.

Nos. 39, 41, 44, are GRANTED. For the reasons that follow, however,

Plaintiff’s Objections are denied and the recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge is adopted and affirmed. 

I.

Plaintiff Darrell White [“Plaintiff”], an inmate who is

proceeding without the assistance of counsel, brings this action

against the Ohio Fair Plan [“Defendant”] in connection with a dispute

regarding an insurance policy. Plaintiff asserts various

constitutional violations against the Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

Case: 2:10-cv-01117-ALM-NMK Doc #: 45 Filed: 08/19/11 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
§§ 1981 and 1983. Plaintiff also asserts claims arising under state

law. 

As the Magistrate Judge noted, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,

Doc. No. 15, alleges only in conclusory fashion that his rights were

violated by Defendant. Because Plaintiff offered little by way of

factual support for his claims, Defendant clarified the facts giving

rise to this action. In particular, this action follows a state court

action in which Plaintiff challenged Defendant’s denial of insurance

coverage following a fire at his property located in Lima, Ohio, in

2006. See Exhibit 1 attached to Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment. The Court of Common Pleas for Franklin County, Ohio,

dismissed that action after concluding that Plaintiff’s claim was

barred by the one year limitation period set forth in the insurance

policy. See Exhibit 3, at 2-3, id. Plaintiff appealed that decision

but the appeal was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to file an

appellate brief. See Exhibit 5, id. Plaintiff appealed that decision

to the Ohio Supreme Court, which refused jurisdiction on March 10,

2010. See Exhibit 7, id. 

In addressing the Motions for Summary Judgment in this action,

the Magistrate Judge concluded that “under the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine, [the Court] lacks jurisdiction to review the decision of the

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which appears to be the crux of

Plaintiff’s claims in this Court.” Order and Report and

Recommendation, at 5. The Magistrate Judge further concluded that the

doctrine of res judicata precluded Plaintiff from relitigating the

insurance coverage issue in this Court because those are claims that

2

Case: 2:10-cv-01117-ALM-NMK Doc #: 45 Filed: 08/19/11 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
either were or could have been raised in the state court action. Id.,

at 5-6. Thus, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 29, be denied and that

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 31, be granted. 

Plaintiff has filed various objections to this recommendation. 

The Court now addresses the merits of these objections and reviews the

matter de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

II.

Plaintiff argues that his case should not be dismissed without

addressing the merits of his constitutional claims against Defendant. 

See Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave and Objection, Doc. No. 39, at 1-2. 

Plaintiff also takes issue with the Magistrate Judge’s reliance on

Defendant’s recitation of the factual background giving rise to this

case. Id., at 3. Finally, Plaintiff argues that counsel should have

been appointed to assist him in this action. See Plaintiff’s

Objection, Doc. No. 40, at 1. In short, Plaintiff maintains that he

has been discriminated against and denied his federal constitutional

rights and that this Court should adjudicate his claims. See also

Instanter Motion to Supplement, Doc. No. 44. 

In reviewing the matter de novo, this Court concludes that the

Magistrate Judge’s decision was correct. Despite Plaintiff’s

contention that his discrimination and constitutional claims must be

adjudicated, the fact remains that the claims concern a matter already

litigated in state court. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars this Court

from reviewing a matter that was the subject of an earlier state court

3

Case: 2:10-cv-01117-ALM-NMK Doc #: 45 Filed: 08/19/11 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
action. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923);

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 

Further, the doctrine of res judicata requires this Court to give

preclusive effect to that final state court judgment. See Abbott v.

Michigan, 474 F.3d 324, 330 (6th Cir. 2007). This means that, even

though the state court did not reach the merits of plaintiff’s claims,

its final judgment dismissing the case as untimely precludes the

litigation in this Court of all claims that either were or should have

been raised in the state court.

The Court also finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s reliance

on Defendant’s recitation of the factual and procedural history of the

proceedings in state court. Contrary to Plaintiff’s suggestion, the

Court has not ignored the nature of Plaintiff’s claims; rather, those

claims must be considered in light of the full record from which they

arise. Finally, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s contention that

counsel should have been appointed to assist him. The appointment of

counsel would not change the result of this action. 

For all these reasons, the Court denies the Objections raised by

Plaintiff and adopts and affirms the recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge.

III.

WHEREUPON, Plaintiff’s Objections, Doc. Nos. 39, 40, 41, 43 and

44 are DENIED. Plaintiff’s motions to supplement his opposition and

objections, Doc. Nos. 39, 41 and 44, are GRANTED. The Order and

Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 37, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.

4

Case: 2:10-cv-01117-ALM-NMK Doc #: 45 Filed: 08/19/11 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 31, is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 29, is DENIED. The

Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT in this action.

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley

 United States District Judge 

5

Case: 2:10-cv-01117-ALM-NMK Doc #: 45 Filed: 08/19/11 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>